Slashdot Mirror
Obama Calls Today's Ubiquitous Gadgets and Information "a Distraction"
zaphod was one of several readers unhappy with the sentiment expressed in President Obama's graduation address to the students of Virginia's Hampton University, writing: "According to Obama, 'information becomes a distraction' when it comes to iPads, the Xbox, etc. (All items he admits not knowing how to use.) He's basically saying we are getting too much information too quickly, and from 'unreliable sources.' Of course, he's referring to talk radio, blogs and other mediums that tend to disagree with his political views."
CNET has a slightly different, less critical reaction, focusing on the differences among the actual devices named; they note that the Xbox is not an iPad.
Perhaps if his administration had the transparency he promised on the campaign trail, it would be easy to get the information people are seeking from credible, reliable sources.
Whether the President and his administration like it, this form of information sharing is very likely here to stay. Perhaps the best reaction would be to embrace it and use it as a positive differentiator from other administrations.
Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
'information becomes a distraction'
I think it's more accurately stated that 'information can be a distraction' but, you know, it can also be a very useful tool both in learning and communicating. Everyone can have a Facebook account and everyone can read blogs but the programmer that spends much of his time reading reading blogs about programming and uses Facebook only to keep up with his friends periodically is going to outpace the programmer that spends 90% of his time on Facebook and 5% of his time reading movie reviews on blogs.
So, by and large, it comes down to -- surprise surprise -- responsible time management. Yes, too much information via the internet and mobile devices is a double edged sword. I cannot keep up with the papers on arxiv but if I learn to manage my time and quickly recognize which papers are worth my time then it is very valuable to an academic. Or I could spend my time playing Farmville. Both occupy my time and can be distractions.
Information is a very powerful tool, no matter how much you want to blame the method and frequency of delivery it's ultimately up to you what you do with it. I read transcript and honestly I thought it was closer to this dualism than the summary lets on.
Of course, he's referring to talk radio, blogs and other mediums that tend to disagree with his political views.
I don't think so. He actually encourages reading both sides:
This development can be both good and bad for democracy. For if we choose only to expose ourselves to opinions and viewpoints that are in line with our own, studies suggest that we will become more polarized and set in our ways. And that will only reinforce and even deepen the political divides in this country. But if we choose to actively seek out information that challenges our assumptions and our beliefs, perhaps we can begin to understand where the people who disagree with us are coming from.
For once the Slashdot summary seemed to be even more politically charged and biased than the actual politician. The correct message is to manage your time well and exercise caution. Sound advice actually.
My work here is dung.
Apparently he didn't consider Xbox a distraction when he was running in-game campaign ads on it.
That was then, this is now. After all, you can't trust media to be "accurate" if it isn't state controlled, like in China. Now. Before, you couldn't trust the media *because* it was state-controlled. Like HuffPo. Oh, wait...
-=Maggie Leber=-
He meant that as information becomes decentralized, the government cannot control its distribution. The Users become the Producers and Creators, and also their own Network. Dissent can become viral, and that buffoon Robert Gibbs can barely stamp out a cockroach let alone an Internet meme. The best education also entertains, and the most effective dissent begins with satire.
"It's OK to enjoy your Bread and Circuses, Americans," Obama concluded his speech. "Just be sure that they are government issue. Thank You and Good Night."
Is this the same man who couldn't/wouldn't be separated from his blackberry?
I was intending to watch it but then I got a tweet from my bff and had to update my Facebook page and status on Foursquare.
Beta sux! Join the Slashcott! http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4760465&cid=46173047
"What Jefferson recognized... that in the long run, their improbable experiment -- called America -- wouldn't work if its citizens were uninformed, if its citizens were apathetic, if its citizens checked out, and left democracy to those who didn't have the best interests of all the people at heart."
Right on, and that is precisely the problem we have right now: most of the citizens do not care. People are not just unaware of the issues facing America and what their government is doing; they seem not to care about any of it at all.
Palm trees and 8
It's always "aliens have invaded", or "nuke goes off in major city", or "Duke Nukem is still not available"...
Bill Gates talked about Information Fatigue years ago when Microsoft was trying to bring together disparate information systems with their backend server tools.
Here's an article from 2006
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/execmail/2006/05-17eim.mspx
The idea was that it wasn't too much information coming in that was the problem. Rather it was too much pure data and "dumb" information being presented to users. This led to users getting too wrapped up in filtering this information themselves and spending too little time with the data that they truly needed.
Pascal once wrote "The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter." Cutting through the vast amount of unnecessary data to get to important intelligence is time consuming. Obama is right, but he's also a decade late.
Hey, for once I agree with St. Obama. I realize that geeks are never going to admit it, but there is a price for our geekery. How many of us are distracted, and have short attention spans. Let's take a moment to think about...
Hey look... an ipad....
W
But that's because obama was the one saying it, so it was ok. Frankly, all this information makes me scared and confused. I wish they would start a department of truth in the government to tell me what I should be thinking.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
The speech writer was a bit off their game that day from the sounds of it. There are way to many writers currently confusing message with medium, and gadgets with tools. If the user is focussed or disciplined, it all becomes much more about what they are trying to do. So no, Obama, our brains are not rotting from too much ibox. Maybe if the Obama administration made some proactive legislation around data privacy, rights to anonymity, restrictions on advertising in public commons, rather than slinging mud around about simple living, just because the wifey gardens.
Waiting for the other shoe to...
Did he announce this using twitter?
The ducks in the bathroom are not mine. [http://www.27bslash6.com]
Obama wasn't calling out particular devices. 5 years ago it would gave been "laptops on wifi, iPods, MP3 players, Cellphones with net connections, Playstation and Nintendo mobile" Yes both iPods and mp3 players :) adds that presidential touch.
In any case he's warning an at risk group of university students to focus on their education rather than being distracted by always on media and Media.
These speeches aren't always 100% addressing the greatr society. Sometimes they specifically address the physical audience.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
This was a graduation address, not a state of the union speech. He's not laying down policy here. He's speaking to a very specific audience (graduating students) about a very specific topic (transitioning from school to the workforce). This was not the preamble to new legislation, nor should it be misconstrued as such.
IMHO, Eisenhower's Council on Youth Fitness was a far more intrusive condemnation of how we spent our leisure time than this.
- Despite popular opinion, I am not perfect.
I just find it funny, seeing as he was the one who wouldn't give up his Blackberry...
Careful. You're liable to get modded down by someone.
While there's some truth to what Obama says about being having so much information that it becomes a distraction (similar comments have been made about disclosure overload: everyone writes incredibly long, boring, impossible-to-parse "terms of service", "EULA", and other bits attached to products...), the original article does have a point about most people's definition of an "unreliable source" being "a source I don't agree with."
Obama's political opponents flourish in certain media. So it's in his best interest (while being rather divorced from honesty and reality) for him to call them names and tar them as "unreliable." Likewise, the media sections that do love Obama - such as the alphabet-soup media - are more than happy to not cover certain stories. And this follows from all walks of life, just not Obama. For instance, let's take the Israeli/Palestinian bit.
Did you know that within a week of signing the Oslo Accords, Yassir Arafat was back on Palestinian radio, comparing the Oslo Agreement to the Truce of Medina (whereby Mohammed the "prophet" entered into a 10-year truce, then broke it two years later because he figured his army was now big enough to win), calling Oslo "the great deception"? No? Why not? Probably because the alphabet-soup media was, at the time, invested in Oslo.
Did you know that the Waqf, the Palestinian "authority" on the squatter's mosque at "Al Aqsa", have been deliberately excavating and destroying irreplaceable archaeological artifacts from beneath the site? And why not? Again, the story's been buried.
Take the recent terrorist attack at Times Square. At 5pm that day, I was listening to ABC News, when they announced the search was on for a "40 year old white male" at the urging of the Obama administration. Whoops! You can find plenty of coverage of media spokesboobs talking about how they "didn't want" it to be what it clearly is: another taliban-type attack.
Information can indeed be distraction, but just as important is realizing that bias expresses itself in many forms. You can tag certain things with certain words - I freely admit I consider the Waqf to be illegitimate, from studying the history of the squatter's mosque, but others can freely feel differently. You can write tilted stories that blatantly misuse or misrepresent statistics. You can write "statistics" that have almost no connection to reality, due to bad sampling or tilted questions, and then quote them in a seemingly "neutral" piece "covering" the survey results. Or you can just bury a story entirely. Anyone who trusts one side's media or the other, exclusively, is setting themselves up for trouble.
I gotta run and get my popcorn for the 'discussions' on this topic. Let the political ego nukes fly!
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
the Truth becomes a distraction.
No longer can government officials just hide behind friends in the press (print/broadcast). Very much how blogs turned up the heat on big media in 2004 it was a signal that many in government failed to see, that is, we the people can watch you, we can report on you, and we will.
Hence the little "trial balloons" floated about going after blogs and their commercial associations (reviewing products, people, etc). Anything to get some leverage on the new free voice. Can't wait for the changes to election laws going after blogs.
Nah, the blogs are grassroots and grassroots are the one thing DC is having a problem with. Trying to counter with their SEIU fake gatherings to offset Tea Partiers got exposed by blogs, not the news media. Face it DC, you can lie through the press but the press won't be our main source going forward.
It also works well for the leaders of other countries, namely Iran. Technology may for the short time give the regular person the upper hand until it can regulated into oblivion
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I know that most governments are corrupt and all that, but did Obama really say anything wrong this time? He was addressing a group of students when he said that information overload and quickly accessible information can be distracting. You know what? He's right. I'm a student. I find video games, TV shows, Slashdot, overclocking forums, Linux forums, email, telephone, new software, Facebook notifications, to be hugely distracting. I would go so far as to say that I am mildly addicted to new, bite-sized pieces of information. It doesn't help that I already have ADHD - but the Internet and other computer-based media go a long way in keeping me off-track.
...Wow, did half of the posters here even read the article? Obama's not pro-censorship, he's not arguing that x-box's, twitter and facebook should be taken away:
"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation,"
"some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction," in the clamor of certain blogs and talk radio outlets.
What Obama is saying, is that in this day and age of massive media coverage you shouldn't always believe what you read. He's encouraging the students to find alternate sources of information, to actually investigate something before spouting off and further propagating the Chinese Whisper... You know, basically what most of the people replying to this article did.
is here, and here is the paragraph that people are taking issue with:
What I find interesting is not the assertion about the devices, and information becoming entertainment — that's been true since at least the beginnings of edutainment and of news as entertainment almost twenty years ago. For me, the interesting part is the first sentence: "And meanwhile, you're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter." It seems to me that throughout history, the times when truth has been the major component of the information we are given have been few and far between. For example, the news media in the US, despite their pretensions to objectivity, haven't been particularly honest at any time in their history. Even in WWII, the war correspondents left out more than they said, and that was probably the height of objectivity in the news. Heck, the news media was in great part responsible for fomenting the Spanish-American War (google "yellow journalism"), reported the propaganda of Saddam Hussein as news in order to maintain access, and spent years trying to talk us into a recession (note the tone of economic reporting under Bush vs. that under Obama, and compare that to the actual statistics).
In other words, the real requirement we have is not to shut off the flows of information, or even to tilt at the windmill of trying to ensure that all the information we have access to is truthful, but to armor ourselves with scepticism, basic statistical knowledge, and deep historical knowledge so that we, individually, can sort out the truth from the lies, distortions and agenda-driven propaganda we are faced with.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Double plus good.
I agree with him on this one. Sort of...
We are getting distracted by disinformation from bloggers who crave web hits over actual journalism. We also don't place enough value on actual journalists (you know the trained professions) who go out in the field and research the report, and their editors who fact check the story (*cough*) before it is placed on the web or in print.
We live in an echo chamber. Where if it's linked by three bloggers then it must be true. Where if it's similar to what you wish were true then it must be true.
My only beef is that he didn't mind the unsubstantiated "information" that benefited his position and allowed him to win an election with nothing more than a "Yes We Can" slogan.
Live by the tweets and blogs, die by the tweets and blogs...
I think it would be more accurate to say that we are distracted by technology (games, tweets, etc.) instead of actually trying to learn something... Really, how many teenagers are actually using technology to learn something beneficial? Really?
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
I'm assuming you've read 1984?
This is /. so no, I haven't read anything except the summary of that book, and quite frankly, I'm going to have say I was quite disappointed that it was nothing like the Apple ad it was based on. Go figure.
He's the President of the USA but cannot work out how to use an iPod or xBox?
And this is coming from the man who "accidentally" let it slip, whilst he was campaigning for the Presidency that he had an iPod of his own.
Does his wife have to put music on it for him? Or his children maybe?
You're absolutely right--he must be some kind of a slacker moron, because in his copious free time he doesn't even bother to keep up with the latest gizmos. He's probably wasting his time figuring out useless crap like how to make the planet a better place for his children or some shit like that. I mean, really, what kind of fucktarded N008 can't even be bothered to surf over to pirate bay to rip off his own music?
Listen to what I say, not what I mean...
It just means he knows what he's talking about.
and other mediums that tend to disagree with his political views"
in obama's defense, calling talk radio and blogs as "mediums that tend to disagree with his political views" is like describing the ebola virus as "organic matter that tends to disagree with your right to live"
talk radio and political blogs are seething venomous pits of propaganda, whether from right or left, and are not valid sources of anything. nevermind the laughable idea they offer polite respectable disagreement to your political views. is a ranting lobotomized alzheimer's patient infected with rabies a "disagreement with your political views"?
mindless partisan hate (left OR right), which is all talk radio or political blogs are, is are completely useless. echo chambers for people who have turned off their minds. completely unthinking, loud, tired, endlessly rehashed pointless drivel. talk radio and political blogs are septic systems of the mind, and are not valid reactions to anything anyone says or does, whether right or left. the less talk radio you listen to and political blogs you read, indeed, the clearer your mind. reading a blatantly left wing or right wing blog probably instantly (temporarily) lowers your iq
in such a respect obama is 100% correct. if gw bush said the same thing, he would be correct to. because it doesn't matter the source of the observation, because the observation is not an attack on the right or the left. if osama bin laden told you it is important to wash your hands after using the toilet, does the source of that observation make the statement immediately suspect? no: its important to wash your hands after leaving the toilet, even osama bin laden recognizes this. therefore, it is equally true what obama says about talk radio and political blogs, whether said by him or sarah palin about left wing blogs. left OR right wing: talk radio and political blogs are poison to the mind
so obama's observation is completely valid. talk radio and political blogs are not coherent sources of impartial information. talk radio and political blogs are mental filth and they destroy civil society by turning it into a race to the bottom of mindless attacks and smears
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Of course, he's referring to talk radio, blogs and other mediums that tend to disagree with his political views."
What is this bullshit? Sounds like someone's still bitter about losing the election.
Read what I mean, not what I wrote.
Couldn't agree more. It's impossible to find unbiased news on TV anymore. Whatever happened to accurate coverage, and when did Mainstream media decide to only cover stories that favor their side?
I agree with you that we have allowed the internet and entertainment media to distract us from our daily lives, but I believe that this is only half the problem posed by entertainment & informational technology.
The other half of the problem, as Obama perhaps tried to allude to but didn't quite fully specify, is that when we permit ourselves to be overloaded with information, but lack the expertise to evaluate its validity and worth, we are easily manipulated by lies, half-truths, and biased points-of-view. That's why we need news and media experts to help sort, highlight, and evaluate the information that we lack the expertise to do ourselves; they help identify for us what is important.
Think of it like Antique Road Show without the experts. Information is like the stuff that we collect in our attics. We need content experts to help us understand and recognize the value of what we possess, as well as convince us to throw away the things that aren't worth anything. Without the experts, we become informational pack rats; we possess everything, but know the value of nothing.
And when ignoramuses start to throw around information that they don't understand, we aren't empowered; we're misled.
The other problem I am becoming more concerned about is people building bubbles of information and opion which does not include outside POVs.
What I mean is that people read blogs, watch TV shows etc., which only serve to reinforce their current world view. Whether that be to the left or right in the political spectrum. Or opinions on scientific research, or religious groups.
Recently I went to a precinct meeting of my $PoliticalPartyofMyChoice. I then volunteered to serve as a delegate to the county caucus. In this situation I was forced meet with, in real life, people I did not agree with. Even in the same political party there can a wide variety of points of view, biases, misinformation, lack of good information, undiscussed issues of concern to you etc. Speaking to people face to face without the shroud of the internet forced me to think about things and review some of my biases and positions. I had argue (in the classical sense of the word, as in "to debate") some of my points and allow myself to be educated.
It was actually was a good experience due to that. I would recommend it. Put down the iPad and XBox, get out of the house, and get involved face-to-face.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I find it pretty hilarious that the responses to this topic basically prove him right. People didn't read the article, nor the speech, they just responded with their own political bent, conspiracy theories or a knee jerk reaction that all the distraction is good.
Can you imagine any kind of protest on a college campus these days that would push for real reform? No, everyone's checking the facebook or watching videos.
What's that over there? Something shiny?
Did you see any pics of the guy? No? Sorry, but they were off by a decade and if you want to claim that the picture made it so he could be mistaken for something other than what he is, then the video is too grainy and distorted to be useful.
The point was, the description was off-base, and it was off-base on wishful thinking from certain media personalities and Obama administration officials who were hoping to tie the situation to "anti-Obama sentiment."
Maybe he's talking about Information Overload which is indeed a problem.
Think about those managers that are completelly Blackberry driven (those that almost always give the highest priority to their BB, even in meetings) and now consider the quality of their decision making: for people that get so many e-mails and are so on top of things, they usually are surprisingly uninformed and unthinking in their decisions.
Maybe Obama's statements should be read as:
- President of the USA says that nowadays people have too many things pulling their attention and receive too much low-value information
and that has negative consequences with regards to their knowledge and wisdom.
instead of:
- Well know Democrat politician tells people what they're doing wrong.
You know, even though he's the lider of a political party in a highly politically polarised nation, he's still the fucking president of the US of A and he didn't got there by being stupid. Maybe he's capable of an informed opinion ...
<RANT>
It pisses me off to no end that me, an European, have to be then one pointing out the he's a man that has succeeded in getting elected to a highly coveted position, which few can achieve and that maybe his non-political opinions, at least once in a while, should be heard instead of dismissed outright because of his political affiliation
</RANT>
Then he should make a flowery commencement speech, not a campaign stump speech. Or do you disagree?
If I had any mod points I'd bump you up. The parent does exactly what Obama complained about: he takes a politically neutral subject and contorts it in such a way that "information overload" all of a sudden becomes "liberal media conspiracy." Gotta love how he insinuated that the evil liberal media was in cahoots with the terrorists. He really exposed himself with "Taliban-type attack." He probably meant Al-Qaida, but they're all brown, so what's it matter?
Gotta love how he claims that you can use statistics to lie and spread misinformation. You don't have to use statistics. Accusing the media of conspiracy for not covering certain stories more in depth is so logically absurd that he must be intending on spreading misinformation himself. There's a much easier explanation: incompetence. But not on the media's part, on the part of the reader base. People care more about stories about Pandas having sex than they do about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict so the media invests more time and money covering Panda stories. The BBC, which tends to support Obama more than most American media outlets, actually does cover stories such as Oslo more in depth rather than just gloss over them. This seems to indicate that the ineptitude of the American media probably has more to do with our culture than some conspiracy between Obama, terrorists, and Ted Turner.
The fact of the matter is that if you get your daily news from Sarah Palin or Ariana Huffington's blog, you're not getting reliable information. The internet is full of unreliable information from all angles of the political spectrum, so it's doubtful that Obama was seeking to silence political opposition with these comments.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
People know when they're wasting time playing too many games and browsing too many blogs. Obama is just encouraging the graduates to do something with their lives instead of frittering them away. For some crazy reason a lot of people in here find that threatening, can't imagine why.
// sammy baby liked this.
Just like Aldous Huxley said it would be.
"Obama is just encouraging the graduates to do something with their lives instead of twittering them away."
Fixed that for you.
JAGga.me ----> Producing video games addressing emotional health and wellness issues affecting teens.
This is weird coming from a gadget freak, but people really are bomarded by way too much information at once. I can think of a lot of examples:
I'm not some Luddite who thinks we need to go back in time - we just need to learn as a society when to turn down the huge amount of noise coming in. Some noise is good, but when it means you can't sit still for 20 seconds, something has gotten out of whack.
...the original article does have a point about most people's definition of an "unreliable source" being "a source I don't agree with."
.
Bullshit.
Please define "most people", and cite your references.
It is damned easy to throw out blanket statements like this, especially when they have a kind of seductive way of prompting us to shrug and say, "Well, that makes sense." It is somewhat harder to actually think about what is being said. The strong implication is that all "sources" are reliable and we discount those we disagree with as un-reliable simply because we disagree with them. "Talk radio" is demonstrably unreliable as a source of information. And why should it be otherwise? It's an entertainment medium, designed to sell commercials, and nothing more. The fact that I disagree with him 99% of the time doesn't change the fact that Glenn Beck is fountain of nonsense 99% of the time. But I don't lose any sleep over Beck selling commercials to those willing to support his goofy show. I most certainly do lose sleep over the fact that there are a lot of people out there who think that Glenn is any kind of credible information source.
What all this has to do with iPads and whatnot, I don't really get, but I have a strong suspicion that some speech writer was trying to make the prez look a little less threatening (i.e. not "young and radical") to the demographic group that historically has trouble coping with changes... like "...all them new-fangled information gadgets".
There are certain people for whom much of what THEY say YOU should do, does not apply to THEM. He is one of THOSE people.
Frankly, he is welcome to his opinion, and may even be right, on this issue. In a sane world I would just say, So what?
Unfortunately he is in a position to "do something" about it.
And if being a "distraction" isn't enough, soon you'll hear "all those electronic devices aren't good for the environment"...
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Well let's see:
First of all, "built in AD 685"? No such claim can be made - even Muslim "scholars" argue over the building timeframe.
Second of all, "AD 685" is more than 50 years after Mohammed's (ptooie) death, and the Umayyid dynasty's construction of a Mosque and structures called "the farthest", in reference to an obscure koranic line that has no basis to refer to any physical location on earth... yeah. We're talking not about a "holy site of Islam" here, but the equivalent of those "Jesusland" theme parks that occasionally pop up in the southern US by nutbag christians.
I know its history, so I call it what it is: a joke. Any Muslim who goes there to "worship" is praying to the almighty coin, nothing more.
Couldn't agree more. It's impossible to find unbiased news on TV anymore. Whatever happened to accurate coverage, and when did Mainstream media decide to only cover stories that favor their side?
Unbiased news never existed. It's only recently that we have opposing views in media that expose the bias. When all the media is saying the same thing, bias is harder to spot. It gets accepted as truth by default. Since we now have differing views on different channels, we can compare them and the bias becomes obvious.
Getting the same story from different views is a good thing. I've learned that the other side is not evil. They want the same thing I do. They just have a different idea as to how to get there.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
This is why I sympathize with Obama. I know exactly what it's like to have people over-parse and over-analyze your words, when they'd just understand if they had some common sense. For fuck sake, he's making a flowery commencement speech, not policy.
You must have loved Bush!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
"Just as bad?" Really? Too much of my job consists of email, and somehow I don't think it fly if I switched all that time over to playing video games. Love him or hate him, but do you honestly think Obama would be President Obama today if all the time he spent on the blackberry he'd instead spent playing XBox? Really now.
I do think Obama's remarks could have just as easily included other time sinks, such as TV. But apparently the Obamas do have an opinion about that too: "Like any family, the Obamas have their TV rules. The kids get to watch only on weekends."
Yea..... Get back to me when he, actually, says something like that. Until then, I'm using my freedom of speech to suggest that you're paranoid.
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
Aren't they pretty much the same thing? Talk is cheap, and when you're smart sometimes it's hard to word things perfectly for the obsessive-compulsive crowd who doesn't understand your hand waving and generalizations.
Just like people take sound bytes of Obama and say "OMG HE'S A COMMUNIST!" this is no different. Unless policy changes arise from this, I don't really care. What he's saying is generally intelligent and has some merits, but nitpicking about specific points is just asinine. When he's making a graduation speech, he doesn't need to dot his I's and cross his T's just because some people can't look past the words and get to the sentiment.
And to the poster below who thinks I loved Bush: no. That's a false conjecture, though I gave him his benefits of the doubt as well. I voted for neither Bush nor Obama (yet).
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
Love him or hate him, but do you honestly think Obama would be President Obama today if all the time he spent on the blackberry he'd instead spent playing XBox?
Well, using cocaine didn't stop him or his predecessor, why would the Xbox?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Yes, exactly.
As Mark Twain put it, a lie could be half-way around the world before the truth could put its boots on--and that was before the internet. Now we have internet echo chambers where the ignorant can stay ignorant with the help of other fools, some of whom make a living at being fools, and where, if you just stay within the limits of the circle-jerk, you need never encounter an idea or piece of evidence that challenges your views.
He also mentioned iPads. Those aren't game consoles. He's a hypocrite.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Yeah that big whoosh of air came all the way from the Amazon... the book just disappeared.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
In other words, Obama starts debates on important topics he knows he doesn't know everything about. He even admitted so in said speech.
The fact that people are now debating the purpose of information technology in our lives is a good thing.
But misinterpreting the spark that started the debate is what annoys me. Steering the discussion toward what a Luddite he is, or how ridiculous the idea is, completely misses the point.
Sometimes people talk out loud and air their ideas just so they can refine them and make them better. Being someone who does that often, I find that to be a good thing. I think it's good to challenge your own ideas and to not commit fully until you understand the nuances better.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
My job also consists of a lot of email, but some of us realize that email is just as much a distraction as it is a tool. I have seen too many people that sit in a meeting, and are so involved in their emails that they completely ignore the conversations going on in which they are there to be involved in. Yes, email is a tool, and a very handy one at that, but is not a replacement for actually interacting with someone.
I am not saying that the Blackberry is on the same level as an XBox, but that it is as much of a distraction to the user as it is an annoyance and distraction to anyone who is forced to wait for the imaginary friend on the other side of the email, before being able to continue a real-world interaction. Which, sounds a bit like, according to him,a point where "information becomes a distraction." He is speaking of not just games, but the overload of information, both good and bad.
Right. An XBox is harmless entertainment, whereas a Blackberry is digital crack.
From the article:
OK... let's see what he's said about the Cambridge police: "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played," yet he claimed the police "acted stupidly." Let's also look at how he saw the Arizona immigration law: "Now, suddenly, if you don't have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to get harassed -- that's something that could potentially happen". Well, the immigration law specifically PROHIBITS stopping anyone based on skin color. I don't think the Arizona law is the way to go either-- but that's because border enforcement is the Federal government's right according to the Constitution, so we need to use legal means of getting them to stop shirking their responsibility.
In short, I think the President should have that knee-jerking problem looked at by a doctor-- I hear he has a great health plan.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Seriously. I'd much rather have a president who used cocaine and lied about it...
I don't really care one way or the other as long as they aren't using while in office. I do wish they'd be less hypocritical about it though. A decent number of politicians are honest enough to admit they've used recreational drugs (and probably a larger number still have used them but refuse to admit it) yet they continue to support the failure known as the War on Drugs.
Do as I say, not as I do.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration's new drug czar says he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting "a war on drugs," a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use.
In his first interview since being confirmed to head the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske said Wednesday the bellicose analogy was a barrier to dealing with the nation's drug issues.
"Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a 'war on drugs' or a 'war on a product,' people see a war as a war on them," he said. "We're not at war with people in this country."
soon you'll hear "all those electronic devices aren't good for the environment"...
Sooner than you think.. They already took the lead out of our solder, the PCBs out of our oils.. Next they'll be telling us no more silicon.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The truth might be slower than a lie; but technology makes *us* as fast as we want to be.
Lies come to us, but finding the truth has never been easier, if we want to look.
While technically the law does prohibit it, racial profiling is what is actually happening (you know, this whole "reality" thing you may have heard of). Hell, they even arrested a guy on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant because he didn't have his *birth certificate* on him. He had a CDL and everything, but that wasn't enough for the authorities.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
I believe your blame is misplaced. A white guy in his 40s was seen in leaving the area and changing shirts as he left. The FBI wanted to question him as a "person of interest". They had him on a security camera. He was one of the first people they looked at, but they dismissed him as a suspect very quickly.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126565648
This was not some vast liberal conspiracy to make it look like a tea-party member did it. It was simply the 24-hour news media going crazy with a video that somehow went public.
You are attempting to counter the poster's comment of unreliable source being defined as a source I don't agree with.
Your examples in your argument are that the two large sources of conservative republican rhetoric are full of shit and everyone knows it. Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck are full of shit but your disagreeing with them has no bearing on your anecdotal evidence.
Can you cite references of information that Rush Limbaugh has given out on his show that are inaccurate? Some tax payer numbers or legislation that he is lying about? I can't stand Glenn Beck, but I don't think he is lying. I kind of like Rush Limbaugh and find his knowledge of politics impressive. I have never heard him lying to his audience.
The left of the political realm has always comforted themselves with a warm feeling that the rest of us are just too stupid to know what is good for us. If we listen to a proponent of conservative politics, we are by definition, fools.
I believe that you have in fact made the original poster's point for him, no?
A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding...
Still, that's not the fault of the gadgets. Mr. Obama seems to be focusing on the technology as the problem. He should emphasize personal responsibility more and try to sound less like he is blaming the gadgets themselves. It ain't my fault, the majority of people aren't bright enough to keep from being distracted.
But then, emphasizing personal responsibily really isn't his bag, is it?
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything."
the founding fathers were paragons of the highest virtues of western LIBERAL thought, perhaps the ultimate gifts of the enlightenment in europe, which was a liberal radical reaction to the traditional right wing cesspools of monarchical despotism and religious fundamentalism
and now, today, much as people who call themselves christians spread intolerance in the name of a man who was a prophet of tolerance, we have people like you, who treat the constitution as if it were a religious fundamentalist document. and such brittle fragile minds are the "right"
pfffffffffft
sir: the constitution and the declaration of independence were and are perhaps the most radically liberal, completely nonreligious and completely nonaristocratic statements of faith in the wisdom of the common man, in a thousand years (well, there's the magna carta) and perhaps a thousand more
what the founding fathers wrote has echoed around the world and found admiration and imitation in dozens of other governments worldwide. their notions have continued to evolve, and have helped clarify the dignity of man and elevate him out of slavery/ slaveholding status, in this country and others, and to introduce universal suffrage, the vote for women, equality for women. all liberal notions, all continuing to evolve
nothing at all like this low iq right wing notion that the constitution is like the bible or quran, dusty words to be obeyed, not thought about. that only a few closed minds have some sort of monopoly on its interpretation, and, the best part: interpretted according to reasons just as random and weak as the accusations right wingers hurl at "activist" judges. fools: there is no greater activist judge than antonin scalia... the "originalist"?! ha! now that's a good joke
the constitution is a living document, a living pact with the highest principles of man: equality and dignity for all in the eyes of their government. that you take this inexorably LIBERAL document and somehow posit it as a right-leaning document is cynical, craven, and completely intellectually dishonest. at best, you're simply confused, son: in the name of being right-winged, you've drank the kool aid and walk around holding aloft a document of pure liberalism as if it were some sort of sacred totem object
someday you should actually read the constitution and the declaration of independence and stop treating it like a religious object of veneration like the shroud of turin. in the actual words on those actual pages, in the actual thoughts of our much esteemed founding fathers: you find western liberalism, fool
hilarious
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
And if being a "distraction" isn't enough, soon you'll hear "all those electronic devices aren't good for the environment"..
Sure, because a democrat saying something will be good for the environment is a sure-fire way to get political capital necessary to defeat a powerful economic interest group or groups. You know, kind of like how they just waved the green flag and instantly got rid of SUVs and guns?
If you actually are concerned about this, and not just spreading partisan FUD (and it is just FUD, environmental concerns catch the attention of the public for a moment but that rarely translates into actual votes when opposed to tax cuts and industrial lobbies), then you should realize two things, one: it was offhand advice for the audience that was in front of him, not a plan. Second: the only way the democrats could lose even more seats this midterm election is if they tried to take away cell phones, computers, and other things we distract ourselves with. Well, I guess that's not true, they'll find plenty of ways to let me down.
It must be awesome having a persecution complex so strong that the Imperial March from Star Wars plays in your head whenever you see Obama on TV.
You're surprised by this now? You haven't noticed all the Ron Paulogists and linux libertarians that swarm on every political story? (and some science now too, see climate change)
Yeah it used to be the media only reported on stuff if they at least two credible, independent sources. Now they report what any idiot posts on twitter.
Maybe all the media used to say same thing because they were only reporting confirmed facts. Now that media reports opinions its a lot more diverse, but the only thing you can get from it is that opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and most of them are full of shit.
I already know that other people have different opinions from me, so just tell me the facts and stop wasting my time. I can look at twitter myself if I want to see what people's opinions are.
Oh, give me a fucking break.
He's talking about people mistaking using gadgets for productivity and using only single sources of news rather than actually being productive, thinking for themselves and trying to actually be informed.
He's not talking about removing the ability of anyone who dares disagree with him to speak their point, he's not talking about banning things, he's not talking about *anything* like the paranoid bullshit you seem to imagine.
Look, it's okay - I get it, you don't like the guy. That's fine. But at least, if you're not going to like him, do it for things he's *actually* said and done rather than shit you're imagining he might say or might do. It's people like you - who just decide they're going to ascribe all kinds of things to the other side(s) that are fucking up political discourse in this country.
I'll admit that I tend to lean left (and, to be honest, no mainstream US politician is nearly left enough for my tastes), but I like to think I'm at least somewhat intellectually honest. When Bush and company were in power I was just as bothered by the moonbats who were insisting that Cheney was going to stage a coup before the 2008 elections and other crazy shit like that as I am now bothered by the wingnuts who insist that Obama is actually an Atheist Muslim Socialist Fascist Do-Nothing Empty Suit Who Is Single-Handedly Ruining America By Doing Too Much.
You're certainly welcome to your paranoid delusions that he's going to go from "Hey, kids, think for yourselves" to "Chairman Obama has declared that any source of news other than MSNBC is bad for the environment" but all it's going to do is get you ignored by people who aren't insane.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Well, the immigration law specifically PROHIBITS stopping anyone based on skin color.
Yes, and no one has ever been stopped for Driving While Black either.
In short, I think the President should have that knee-jerking problem looked at by a doctor-- I hear he has a great health plan.
Yeah, because it's not like any of these conspiracy theories are being touted by "mainstream" Republicans:
(Former FEMA Director Michael Brown, Former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, Rush Limbaugh (now he said "environmental wackos)
Seriously. Why should anyone think of these people as legitimate? Furthermore, since these are leaders in party, why should the party be considered legitimate?
It's only recently that we have opposing views in media that expose the bias.
Really? Most major cities in the U.S. (and elsewhere) have had competing newspapers for centuries, some of which tend to be associated with liberal biases, some with conservative, some with other views. About a century ago, huge syndicates started growing that created a system where many papers nationwide were owned by the same person or corporation. It's not surprising that such mass media markets all got similar news when they were owned by the same company. Smaller independent papers couldn't compete, so we lost the diversity of news sources somewhat in the early 1900s.
Nevertheless, most major cities maintained at least two newspapers that had contrasting political viewpoints.
Since we now have differing views on different channels, we can compare them and the bias becomes obvious.
I think what you're referring to is the Fairness Doctrine, large sections of which were repealed in the 1980s. This only applied to broadcast media, and it actually required opposing viewpoints to be considered on the same channel. Of course, one of the major impacts of this rule was that extremist views tended to be avoided in broadcast media, since it was too hard to be "fair" to all extremist positions. Repeal of some provisions of this resulted in a more fragmented broadcast media with more extreme positions.
Nevertheless, the point is that this only ever applied to broadcast media. You could always have alternative newspapers with different perspectives, for example, and these have always existed.
When all the media is saying the same thing, bias is harder to spot. It gets accepted as truth by default. [...] Getting the same story from different views is a good thing.
While I agree with the basic principle here (since I too like reading the same story from different views), the majority of people seem to gravitate toward news sources that agree with their own personal biases. So, rather than educating the public in terms of a reasoned debate (which is what the "Fairness Doctrine" was supposed to do), we have a system that allows people to get their news from sources that already agree with them. People end up reinforcing their own biases, and those biases can grow stronger and more extreme.
I'm not saying we should go back to the older system, but the current system doesn't completely solve the problem you bring up -- and arguably, it tends to make the news media more fragmented and more extremist, which obviously trickles down to listeners/viewers.
The problem isn't the security of the communications medium, but rather the public access laws that require all forms of electronic communications coming from elected representatives (on the federal level) to be archived and published unless it represents a national security issue covered by an official state secret.
Surprisingly, a hand-written note isn't covered by this law. Go figure.
The Arizona law is not about border enforcement, but rather if the law enforcement agencies in Arizona have identified somebody as having violated the law, they need to act and have that law enforced even if it happens to be a federal law. Do you think that if a local police agency saw a money counterfeiting operation, that they should say "I sure hope you don't get caught by the feds", or that perhaps they ought to act and help enforce those anti-counterfeiting laws? It sort of is the job of a law enforcement agency to, I don't know, actually enforce laws they know are being violated?
It isn't like an Arizona police department can detain and imprison people for immigrations violations, but they can certainly inform the federal government that a law is being broken and hold them just like any citizen can do before the "proper authorities" arrive. The question then arises as to if it is proper to ignore that laws are being broken when a formal complaint about a law being broken is being made by a state agency to the federal government. Something really seems screwed up there if a federal immigration officer refuses to cooperate in that situation.
Some communities have gone to the complete opposite extreme on immigration laws to the point they are prohibiting their officers from even communicating any information about immigration status to the federal government at all. That to me is just as wrong and perhaps even worse.
Yeah, I know there is more to the Arizona law than simply this viewpoint, but the basic premise that a state officer asking to have federal laws actually enforced shouldn't be too over the top. As long as you accept this basic premise, the rest is debating about how active those state officers ought to be about doing that kind of enforcement. There certainly is a problem if the citizens of a state get so worked up that they get their state legislature to become more active in a law enforcement activity that ought to be a federal enforcement issue, and the blame falls on the federal government here instead of Arizona for screwing up so awfully in the lack of enforcement of existing laws.
The problem is that we have become a nation of poorly thought out laws.
Our current immigration laws violate one of the founding principles of this country. Our Statue of Liberty even has this ideal inscribed on it. Everything you hear said about Mexicans today echoes that of the Irish, the Chinese, the Italians, and basically every other ethnic group out there when their mass immigration periods were happening such as the Irish potato famine. Our nation has become so weak that we must limit ourselves? It doesn't make any sense, you say amnesty hasn't worked, to that I say, when was amnesty ever attempted?
I live in Arizona, I know people from a great many different cultures and when you get down to it, we're all basically the same decent people. Yeah, we have our differences but they don't stop us from building a better society together.
The bottom-line is that we have 20 million people in this country that we either need to give a path to citizen or boot them out. Limbo is hurting everyone. I'd say give them a real opportunity to become citizens, those that don't then have no moral ground to stand on and deporting them should be less polarizing for people. Otherwise deporting 20 million people is going to be extremely costly in blood and money.
Obama is just encouraging the graduates to do something with their lives instead of frittering them away.
How did you get that out of his speech? It came across to me as a thinly veiled attack on "alternate" media sources. He specifically mentioned the ability of unsubstantiated rumors to spread like wildfire. The "tea party" movement sprung up through the very channels that Obama is concerned about. In the digital age where people can get information from any source they choose, the controls that the media has imposed over society are breaking down. In some cases the break down of controls allows some real crack pots to get their theories out there. Yet with the free exchange of information, those crack pots can be shouted down and debunked. Given that, I do not see what Obama is so worried about.
Actually, I do see what he is concerned about. He is concerned that the media is losing control. Every day, fewer people are believing the shit being shoveled by the main stream media. Fewer and fewer people are believing the same communications channels that allowed Obama to stand up get elected by vague, feel good promises of potential for change without ever putting forward any real action plans. When the Federal Reserve and the Treasury stand up and tell people, "Fear not, everything is under control.", the people can refer to a lot of alternative sources of information that inform them of the reality of the situation. When the generals and politicans get up and say, "Everything is peachy keen in Afghanistan." People can do their own research and realize that it is a complete mess over there and the United States government bit off more than they can chew.
It reminds me of the Fantasy Football Nerds thinking that they're less nerdy than Dungeons & Dragons Nerds. Same diff, dude.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
the immigration law specifically PROHIBITS stopping anyone based on skin color
The law also REQUIRES law enforcement to stop someone who is reasonably suspicious.
The law also allows third parties to sue law enforcement agencies if they DON'T stop people who are reasonably suspicious.
It's quite easy for a cop to stop someone based on racial profiling first and come up with an excuse about reasonable suspicion later if they have to.
While there IS a federal legal requirement for aliens to carry papers, there is NO requirement for citizens to carry papers, thankfully (so far, AZ law effectively excluded)
The law is fucked up
(CAPS are added to stay in keeping with parent's style)
It would not be racist if the majority of the people actually deported were Latinos. However, it *is* racist when you are arresting a bunch of people for possibly being illegal immigrants simply because they have brown skin. Basically, what you wind up with, is a situation in which any American, even those with brown skin has to worry about being randomly arrested and harassed.
Or, how would you like it if the police/FBI/etc started randomly arresting white gun owners since violent militia groups are overwhelmingly composed of white gun owners? Do you really not see the problem here?
Besides, there are other non-racist ways to go about combating illegal immigration. You could, for example, go after the companies that hire illegal immigrants. You could make the fines for hiring illegals so high that it is not worth the risk for them to do so. But, no, not in America. We can't go after businesses that do illegal things! That would be un-American!
Similar to the upcoming US election results
He was fine with twitter, and facebook, and media devices when he utilized them for his campaign. We've "moved on" and his stance is, "Now that enough of you have bought into my message, I'd like to discourage you from hearing messages from anyone else. Particularly my opposition."
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Someone has to balance out the Hallelujah Chorus hearers =)
Your brain is not a computer.
It all depends on what report you've read. The initial report that caught my attention was framed as, "Obama warns students against iPads and iPhones." Upon reading the excerpts of the speech it became evident that he was warning against consuming any content on the internet. He further made the point that a "good education" is necessary to shield the mind against the distractions on the internet. It was a typical "Follow the herd and you will be okay." speech.
It is kind of worrisome that the President is taking it upon himself to "warn" students against the "dangers" of free speech and open communication on the internet. The message was framed in a way that made it seem like the internet is a dangerous waste of time that will distract students from the "important" things that their professors are trying to teach them. Heaven forbid that students should open their minds to sources of information that haven't been vetted by the educational elite and the textbook publishers.
Obama's advice is good advice to anyone who really cares about the world. To anyone that REALLY cares about the world, as so many of the good folk on here seem to say they do, two notions are likely important – civic engagement and democratic participation. Obama’s editorial speaks to the fact that these devices do nothing to facilitate these values (nor any other values of this kind it seems to me). Ipads and Xboxs are value neutral. What is not neutral, however, is the content on them. If the content on these devices is largely comprised of fingertip entertainment and viral social novelties, like facebook, then the devices, by extension, will inevitably distract from the theory and practice of values like civic engagement and democratic participation – the values we like to think we care about. Moreover, when media of this kind is made more accessible it makes it harder to convince the increasingly apathetic people that investment in initial civic education should be valued to begin with. In short, devices like the Ipad produce a compounding circle of eroding social goods, and there is a perfect historical example of this at work. In the early days of TV it was heralded as a revolutionary educational device and “a tool of democracy”. Yet what is the net result of TV 50 years later? The NET result seems be couch potatoes, social disenfranchisement and political apathy. It wasn’t TV itself that did this, but the content on it. To be fair, the stuff on TV is not all bad and the people that value the actually educational and democratically participatory content are often very vocal and active. But it does not change the fact that TV has made the majority of us care less about the kind of values that Obama’s editorial was concerned with. TV has, on the whole, made people lazy and distracted. It matters not the nature of the media device, save for degrees of accessibility. But if the device makes content more accessible that ultimately distracts us from the theory and practice of our highest civic duties and social concerns, then we might say the device is evil – or at least contrary to the good. It’s nice to have toys, and I say let our toys be as frivolous and novel as ever. But when frivolous play and flippant novelty take the place of substantive context rich information, civic engagement, and participation in our democracy, than anyone with a social conscience has reason to be weary of Ipads and xboxs and the distractions they bring.
I mean, gaming is meant to be a distraction. It's meant to pull us away from our daily grind. But I have to say that we definitely got a president who's a lot better than other candidates in terms of how he views gaming. When people get poor grades in school and people are there to play the blame game (no pun intended), Obama says it's the fault of the parents. FINALLY! Clinton was against violence in video games. Who would've known what would have happened had SHE gotten into office...
And I still want to know, why are they not simply going after the businesses that hire illegal immigrants? If you don't want illegal immigrants in the country stop hiring them!
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Funny thing, I've never actually met or read any posts by these mythical Obama-worshippers that I keep hearing about. In fact, every single time someone has referred to him as the Messiah, it's been a right-winger.
To readers of the parent post:
The concept of "liberal" as it was historically known in the year 1800 in the West, or at other times in other countries, or in some random dictionary, or in the fantasy of some asshole on Slashdot who can't be bothered to use the Shift key is NOT THE SAME as the faction of people referred to in the USA in modern times as Liberals. The Liberal faction's belief system rarely includes "liberal" beliefs.
Don't be confused by word definitions. Watch what people do. The "liber" in "liberal" means "free". Does a government takeover of health care, student loans, auto companies, the financial industry, and the energy industry make the people in those industries "free"? Does taxing people make them "free"? Does telling landlords who they have to rent to make the landlords "free"? Does regulating political speech make that speech "free"? Does regulating the amount of wages make people "free"? Does prohibiting smoking make smokers "free"? Does an ever-expanding government with increasing power and tightening control make Americans "free"?
Also, a "living document" is just a document where someone can say it means X one day and Y the next, depending on the particular whim or belief or corrupt interest of the ones in authority that day. The US Constitution has a process to amend it as needed. When you see it referred to as a "living document", the person saying that simply wants to amend it illegitimately, without the consent of the people and contrary to thier will.